Thread: Aaron rodgers over-rated? nfl.com

I think I can actually see what you're getting at to a certain extent Butka. Some players are great and would be anywhere they played and other may have benefitted more from the team or system they played under. Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith might be a good comparision.

Smith gained his yardage behind some great Olines and also had the benefit of playing with a great QB who provided a top flight passing game as well. Walter played behind some horrible Olines and without a decent QB until McMahon came along. Was Emmitt Smith the product of his system and his era as opposed to Walter's greatness with more of a patchwork of blockers and offenses for the majority of his career? Is that what you're getting at?

Okay, I see what you're saying. Usually when i hear "system quarterback", I assume it's in a rather negative connotation, and it just makes it seem easier for those coaches and QBs to make it look good, but like you said, there's varying degrees of play with these quarterbacks in their system (Flynn vs. Rodgers, Cassel vs Brady), and I guess I'm just jealous that the only type of system quarterbacks the Bears produce are the kind that excel in the CFL...

Originally Posted by soulman

I think I can actually see what you're getting at to a certain extent Butka. Some players are great and would be anywhere they played and other may have benefitted more from the team or system they played under. Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith might be a good comparision.

Smith gained his yardage behind some great Olines and also had the benefit of playing with a great QB who provided a top flight passing game as well. Walter played behind some horrible Olines and without a decent QB until McMahon came along. Was Emmitt Smith the product of his system and his era as opposed to Walter's greatness with more of a patchwork of blockers and offenses for the majority of his career? Is that what you're getting at?

That is what I'm getting at Soul. I think if Rodgers were playing for another offensive system, we'd most likely be talking about him as a decent NFL QB and not something more.

Football is a game with so many symbiotic relationships involved, unlike any other major sport. I think many people tend to oversimplify things in their mind because they want a black and white answer. I think too many fall into the trap of saying, "Well look at these stats vs. those stats" or "How many rings does this guy have? vs. that guy". If only it were that simple. One can insist that it is until they're blue in the face with some 'rah rah, all that matters is the ring' malarkey, but in football, it's just not that simple when you're talking about individuals.

Very few players can transcend the benefits or limitations of these symbiotic relationships. I find that a lot of people place Rodgers into this group of players that can go above and beyond. I just don't find that to be true.

Originally Posted by Butka

That is what I'm getting at Soul. I think if Rodgers were playing for another offensive system, we'd most likely be talking about him as a decent NFL QB and not something more.

Football is a game with so many symbiotic relationships involved, unlike any other major sport. I think many people tend to oversimplify things in their mind because they want a black and white answer. I think too many fall into the trap of saying, "Well look at these stats vs. those stats" or "How many rings does this guy have? vs. that guy". If only it were that simple. One can insist that it is until they're blue in the face with some 'rah rah, all that matters is the ring' malarkey, but in football, it's just not that simple when you're talking about individuals.

Very few players can transcend the benefits or limitations of these symbiotic relationships. I find that a lot of people place Rodgers into this group of players that can go above and beyond. I just don't find that to be true.

Makes sense when you think that Favre had his greatest success in that same system. I've said elsewhere in a post with 4th that the Packers have always been a far more developed team with their passing game than the Bears and this goes back decades. Whether it's this era or previous ones the Packers always seem to have an advantage in QBs and WRs. They're known for that like the Bears are known for our RBs and MLBs.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say he's overrated but I'm guessing that if he and Cutler traded places we'd still be bitching about the same things, LOL. The right system can have a lot to do with most players success or failure. Rodgers does benefit by playing for a team that has emphasized their passing game for years.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Like Archie Manning, a talented QB stuck on crap teams his whole career?

That's another great example Benji. Put Archie on another team and maybe he's a HOF QB.

Originally Posted by dabears54

actually rodger's has been in the league 6 years, not 3..big ben 7.. so comparing them is a pretty good level- do not buy into "well he didn't start for 3' so therefore we don't count those years in league...

I'm sorry, but your phase of significance has passed.